Connect with us

Opinion

The Oracle: Disputes Between States and the Federation: Examining the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (Pt. 3)

Published

on

By Mike Ozekhome

INTRODUCTION

In our last discourse on this series, we delved deeper into the constitution of the apex court (Supreme Court) with regards to its membership and how it affects its jurisdiction. We also x-rayed how the subject matter of a case determines a court’s jurisdiction and the conditions precedent to assumption of jurisdiction by a court. Today, we shall continue and conclude on the apex court’s power of jurisdiction and thereafter take a look at the definition of a federation; The Federation” Vs “Federal Government of Nigeria”: The Link and the Principles for the Invocation of the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Please read on.

“Dispute” For The Purpose Of Invoking the Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (Continues)

In A.G. OF THE FEDERATION V. A.G, OF ABIA STATE & 35 ORS, (2001) 11 N.W.L.R. (PL. 725) pg. 689 at 737 the word ‘dispute’ was defined by my Lord S.M.A. Belgore, J.S.C., C.J.N. (as he then was), as follows: “To my mind, a dispute involves acts of argument, controversy, debate, claims as to rights, whether in law or fact, varying opinions, whether passive or violent or any disagreement that can lead to public anxiety or disquiet. I will not close the category of disputes.” Suit No. S.C. 27/2010: (2011) 8 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1248) 31 at 166-167. A dispute is a conflict of claims or rights or demands on one side met by contrary allegations on the other side.

In A.G ABIA v. A.G FEDERATION, Suit No. SC. 73/2006: (2007) 6 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1029) 200 at 219-220. Tabai, J.S.C. held thus: “With respect to the construction given to the word “dispute”, the opinion of the Court (Per Belgore, J.S.C. as he then was) is quite apposite in determining the issue of this Court’s jurisdiction in this case. On page 701 he said of “dispute” thus: ‘…A dispute is a dispute whether apparent or lingering. It is remarkable that in the counter-claims to the suit some States have admitted there is a dispute. This Court in Attorney- General of Bendel State V. Attorney-General of The Federation; (1981) 10 S.C. 1; (1982) 3 N.C.L.R. 1 Attorney-General of The Federation V. Attorney-General of Imo State, (1983) 4 N.C.L.R. 178 set out clearly what is a dispute to the extent of using authoritative English dictionary. To my mind, a dispute involves acts of arguments, controversy, debate, and claims as to rights whether in law or fact, varying opinions, whether passive or violent or any disagreement that can lead to public anxiety or disquiet.’”

The same Belgore, J.S.C. (as he then was) had earlier in A.G, OF THE FEDERATION v. A.G OF ABIA STATE, & 35 ORS (2001) 11 N.W.L.R. (PL. 725) 689 at 737, held, inter alia, that the term dispute as used in section 232(1) of the 1999 Constitution “…Involves acts of arguments, controversy, debate, claims as to rights whether in law or fact, varying opinions, whether passive or violent or any disagreement that can lead to public anxiety or disquiet.”

In his view, C.J.N. (rtd.) in the case of ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION V. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF ABIA STATE & 35 Ors Ibid, at pp 728-729, adumbrated as follows:
“What constitutes a dispute under Section 212 subsection (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979, which has exactly the same provisions as Section 232 subsection (1) in question had been considered by this Court in the cases of ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF BENDEL STATE V. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION & 22 ORS, (1982) 3 N.C.L.R. 1, and A.G OF THE FEDERATION V. A.-G OF IMO STATE & 2 ORS. (1983) 1 S.C.N.L.R. 239; (1983) 4 N.C.L.R. 178. In ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF BENDEL STATE’S case, Bello, J.S.C., (as he then was), stated as follows on pp. 48 to 49 thereof:- “To invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court there must be a dispute as so qualified between the Federation and a State or between States. The issue of jurisdiction was contested on three grounds Firstly, there is no dispute which affected the interest of the Federation and Bendel State between the plaintiff (Bendel State) and the Federation, Secondly, I think the first point may be easily disposed of from the definition of the word “dispute, The Oxford Universal Dictionary defines it as ‘the act of arguing against, controversy, debate, contention as to rights, claims and the like or on a matter of opinion… I also held as follows on p. 320 thereof. It is a well-established principle of the interpretation of the Constitution that the words of a Constitution are not to be read with stultifying narrowness- UNITED STATES V. CLASSIC, 313 U.S. 299, and NAFIA RABIU V KANO STATE (1980) 8-11 S.C. 130 at pp. 148-149. The word ‘dispute in section 212(1) should therefore be given such meaning that will effectuate rather than defeat the purpose of that section on the Constitution. Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary, 2nd Edition, provides that “dispute is synonymous with controversy, quarrel, argument, disagreement and contention.”

Disputes Between States And The Federation: The Legal Position
Section 232 (1) of the Constitution confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to adjudicate disputes between States and the Federation. In order to appreciate this provision, it is expedient to examine what a Federation means.

“Federation”- Meaning

In A.G LAGOS STATE v. AG FEDERATION & ORS, 2014) LPELR-22701(SC), at pp 129-130, Pars A-A. Per KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, JSC on the definition of “Federation”, held thus:
“Section 318 (1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) defines “Federation” as follows: “Federation means the Federal Republic of Nigeria.” In A.G. Kano State vs A.G. Federation, Ibid this Court per Mahmud Mohammed, JSC, relying on the definition of “Federation” within the meaning of Section 232 of the 1999 Constitution, which bears the same meaning in Section 212 of the 1979 Constitution, differentiated between Federation (or the Federal Republic of Nigeria) and the Federal Government thus: Section 212 of the 1979 Constitution under which the word “Federation” was defined is in pari materia with the provisions of Section 232 of the 1999 Constitution now under consideration. I therefore respectfully adopt the definition of the word “Federation” in Section 232 of the 1999 Constitution as bearing the same meaning as the ‘Federal Republic of Nigeria.’ By this meaning…all the complaints of the plaintiff in its statement of claim in the present case must be viewed as being against the Federal Republic of Nigeria in order to bring the case within the purview of Section 232 of the Constitution. In other words, any complaint against the Government of the Federation or any person who exercises power or authority on its behalf like the Inspector General of Police as asserted by the learned senior counsel for the plaintiff in his address before this Court, is completely outside the original jurisdiction of this Court.”

“The Federation” Vs “Federal Government of Nigeria”: The Link

For a better understanding of the meaning of the word “Federation”, the Supreme Court, per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, JSC, only recently emphasized the distinction between the “Federal Government of Nigeria” and the “Federation” in A.G OF KADUNA STATE & ORS v. A.G OF THE FEDERATION & ORS (2023) LPELR-59936(SC); at Pp 22 – 24 Paras F – C., thus:
“So much heavy weather is made about the distinction between the Federation and the Government of Nigeria that exercises its executive powers. That distinction no doubt has a constitutional basis. But since the Government of the Federation exercises the executive powers of the Federation, there is, legally and practically speaking, hardly a dividing line between the acts of the Government of the Federation and the acts of the Federation. The distinction does not exist to the extent of turning the Government of the Federation into a sovereign that can act without regard to the Federation. The Government of the Federation is not sovereign. It is a creation of the Constitution for the purpose of exercising the executive powers of the Federation. The Federation is inherently the sovereign and its sovereignty is further established by S.2(1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution which provides that- (1) Nigeria shall be one indivisible and indissoluble sovereign state to be known by the name of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. (2) Nigeria shall be a Federation consisting of States and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. The sovereignty enjoyed by the Federation is owned by several individual persons constituting the people of the Federation of Nigeria who own the lands that together form the territory of Nigeria. S. 14(2) of the 1999 Constitution acknowledges this ownership by declaring that- (a) Sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria from whom government through this Constitution derives all its powers and authority. (b) The security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of the government, and (c) The participation by the people in their government shall be ensured in accordance with the provisions of this constitution.”

The implication of the above decisions is that, for the Supreme Court to assume jurisdiction, it must be a dispute between the Federation and a State or between States.

Principles For The Invocation Of The Jurisdiction Of The Supreme Court
Many actions between states and the Federation have failed as a result of the failure to appreciate the thin line that grounds the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court laid this confusion to rest in the case of ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF ANAMBRA STATE v. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION, (2007) LPELR-24343(SC) where, per, WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN, JSC, held at pages 95 – 97, Paras F – C), that:
“The Constitution is very clear on when the Supreme Court will invoke its original jurisdiction on a matter. Section 232 of the 1999 Constitution provides: “232(1) the Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have original jurisdiction in any dispute between the Federation and a State or between States if and in so far as that dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends. (To be continued).

Thought For The Week

“Presidents come and go, but the Supreme Court goes on forever”. (William Howard Taft).

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

When Architecture of Policy Meets Architecture of Connection

Published

on

By

By Shakirat Akintola

For many political observers, the proposition of an Atiku-Momodu ticket represents a fascinating answer to Nigeria’s complex governance puzzle. The conversation is rapidly moving past the two personalities involved, evolving into a broader debate about national cohesion, credibility, and the precise qualities required to steady a fractured nation.

Atiku Abubakar, having recently emerged as the presidential candidate for the African Democratic Congress (ADC) following a fiercely contested and highly scrutinized nationwide primary election, remains one of the most resilient figures in Nigeria’s democratic journey. His institutional memory is vast. As the Vice President who chaired the National Economic Council during one of Nigeria’s most consequential eras of economic restructuring and privatization, he understands the levers of state policy.

Yet, in a nation fractured along regional, religious, and generational lines, policy blueprints alone are no longer enough. The opposition faces a distinct hurdle: Nigerians already know who Atiku is. The challenge is not building recognition, but establishing a genuine, empathetic connection with the deep frustrations of the grassroots. This is precisely where Aare Dele Momodu enters the equation.

To view Momodu strictly through the glamorous lens of Ovation International is to misunderstand the deliberate philosophy behind his media empire. While critics might initially mistake his chronicling of high society for elite insulation, his career has actually functioned as a masterclass in breaking down walls. For decades, Momodu did not just document success; he demystified it, bringing the corridors of power and privilege directly to the gaze of the ordinary citizen. More importantly, this deep social capital was forged in the fires of grassroots defiance. Long before he was a celebrated publisher, Momodu was a pro-democracy activist who faced detention and forced exile during the dark days of the Abacha regime for standing with the masses. His ability to navigate corporate boardrooms today is not a sign of detachment from the struggle, but a powerful asset. It means the opposition gains a communicator who can walk into spaces of immense privilege, speak truth to power in their own language, and channel that access directly back into the service of Nigeria’s markets, classrooms, and farming communities.

A Referendum on Lived Realities

The ongoing security and economic trials illustrate exactly why a balance of institutional experience and cultural reach matters. For a parent deciding between school fees and healthcare, or a trader calculating the risks of interstate highways, governance is not a theoretical debate.

The next election will not be won by campaign slogans or aggressive social media strategies. It will be decided by trust. While the ruling party scrambles to convince a strained populace that their sacrifices will yield future rewards, the opposition must present a credible, steady, and comforting alternative.

Nigeria’s future will ultimately be shaped by leaders who look beyond political echo chambers and actively listen to the markets, classrooms, and farming communities. As the country continues its difficult search for stability, the political figures capable of building a bridge between sound policy and genuine human empathy will inevitably command the attention of a nation eager to move forward.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Why Dele Momodu May Be Atiku’s Smartest Running Mate Option Yet

Published

on

By

By Michael Abimboye

As the African Democratic Congress, ADC, gradually consolidates its coalition ahead of the 2027 presidential election, attention has inevitably shifted from the emergence of Atiku Abubakar as presidential candidate to the more delicate and strategic question of his running mate.

Several names have surfaced in political calculations and media speculation: Rotimi Amaechi, Emeka Ihedioha, and Dele Momodu, among them. Yet, beyond the noise of conventional political arithmetic lies a deeper electoral question: who among these options best expands Atiku’s coalition beyond traditional structures and into the modern political battlefield Nigeria has become?

Increasingly, the answer may well be Dele Momodu.

For years, Nigerian politics has operated under an outdated assumption that electoral victory is secured merely through governors, party leaders, and regional strongmen. The 2023 election disrupted that orthodoxy. The emergence of Peter Obi demonstrated that digital momentum, perception management, emotional resonance, and transregional appeal can significantly alter the political equation. Obi’s strongest weapon was not necessarily party structure. It was narrative dominance.

That reality has permanently changed Nigerian politics.

And in the current ADC coalition conversation, Dele Momodu may be one of the few figures who intuitively understands this new political environment.

Unlike many career politicians whose influence remains confined to state structures or elite caucuses, Momodu operates in multiple political ecosystems simultaneously: media, diplomacy, youth engagement, elite networking, pan-African influence, and digital communication. In modern electoral politics, that multidimensional relevance matters enormously.

One of Momodu’s most understated assets is his continental reach. Through decades of media work, political engagement, and elite interaction across Africa, he has cultivated relationships with presidents, former presidents, business leaders, diplomats, and intellectual figures across the continent. His network is not speculative mythology. It is publicly visible and historically documented through his long-running engagements as publisher of Ovation International and participant in high-level African political circles.

At a time when Nigeria seeks to reassert itself diplomatically and economically within Africa, such soft-power capital becomes politically valuable. A vice-presidential candidate today is no longer merely a ceremonial electoral appendage. He must also communicate competence, cosmopolitanism, and international legitimacy.

Momodu fits that profile more naturally than many conventional politicians. There is also the geographical intelligence behind his potential candidacy.

Though widely perceived nationally as a South-West figure because of his strong Yoruba cultural identity and media dominance in Lagos and the South-West, Dele Momodu is fundamentally from the South-South axis through his Edo roots. Politically, this creates a rare advantage. It allows the ADC to potentially tap into two strategic regions simultaneously without provoking the sharp regional anxieties that often accompany vice-presidential selections.

Amaechi, for instance, undoubtedly possesses political experience and administrative depth. But his polarising history in Rivers politics, coupled with his own presidential ambitions, complicates the chemistry required of a running mate. Indeed, reports have repeatedly suggested Amaechi has little interest in a vice-presidential role.

Ihedioha, meanwhile, brings stability and technocratic moderation, but lacks the national media visibility and emotional connection necessary for a fiercely competitive national election. Elections are not won only by competence. They are won by energy, narrative, symbolism, and visibility.
Dele Momodu possesses all four.

Then comes perhaps the most important factor of all: communication.

The 2027 election is unlikely to resemble previous Nigerian elections. It will be heavily digitised, media-driven, youth-influenced, and psychologically contested online. The political establishment still underestimates how profoundly social media has altered electoral mobilisation. The Obi movement in 2023 proved that online enthusiasm can shape national conversation, pressure traditional media, influence undecided voters, and energise urban youth demographics.

Momodu enters this terrain with an already established digital infrastructure.

Unlike many politicians who outsource communication to media aides, Dele Momodu himself is a communication institution. He understands headlines, optics, timing, public emotion, narrative construction, and audience psychology. His social media platforms command enormous engagement across demographics that traditional politicians often struggle to reach organically.

That matters.

In a coalition environment where ADC must unify disillusioned PDP voters, attract soft Obidients, retain Northern numerical strength, and penetrate urban youth constituencies, communication sophistication becomes central to survival.

Momodu also carries an outsider-insider advantage. He is politically experienced enough to understand power, yet sufficiently detached from the toxic baggage of conventional Nigerian political warfare. He has not governed a state, which critics may see as a weakness, but which supporters may frame as insulation from corruption controversies and governance fatigue associated with many old political actors.

In an anti-establishment electoral climate, that distinction could become useful.

Perhaps most importantly, Dele Momodu brings cultural elasticity. He can comfortably engage traditional rulers in Kano, intellectuals in Abuja, media elites in Lagos, young digital audiences in Port Harcourt, diaspora professionals in London, and political moderates in the South-East. Very few Nigerian political figures possess that adaptive national reach without appearing artificial.

And politics, ultimately, is the management of coalitions.

Atiku’s greatest challenge is not merely winning Northern votes. He already possesses substantial Northern recognition. His real challenge is rebuilding emotional trust across sections of Southern Nigeria while simultaneously energising younger demographics sceptical of establishment politics.

A conventional politician may help him consolidate structures.

Dele Momodu, however, may help Atiku reshape perception. And in modern politics, perception is often the first battlefield victory.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Dele Momodu: The Bridge Between Politics and the People

Published

on

By

By Adeoye Inioluwa

Across the Nigerian nation today, conversations have become remarkably similar. Whether in the crowded markets of Lagos, the farms of the North, the commercial centres of the East, or the towns and villages of the South-West and South-South, many Nigerians are asking the same questions. When will life become easier? When will the economy improve? When will businesses regain stability? When will citizens begin to feel safer and more secure in their daily lives?

The concerns are understandable.

The cost of living remains one of the most dominant issues confronting ordinary Nigerians. Food prices have become a source of daily anxiety for many families. Small businesses continue to struggle with rising operational costs. Young graduates face uncertainty about employment opportunities. For millions of citizens, conversations about economic indicators and policy reforms often feel distant from the realities they encounter every day.

Alongside these economic concerns are persistent security challenges. While progress may have been recorded in some areas, many communities still desire greater stability and peace. For ordinary citizens, security is not merely a policy issue. It is the ability to travel safely, conduct business confidently, and live without fear.

These realities inevitably shape the nation’s political mood.

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu assumed office at a time when difficult economic decisions were already looming over the country. His administration has argued that several of its reforms are necessary steps toward long-term economic recovery and sustainability. Supporters maintain that difficult transitions are sometimes required to achieve lasting change.

However, politics rarely rewards intentions alone.

Citizens ultimately judge governments through their lived experiences. They assess leadership not only through policy announcements but through the practical impact of those policies on their everyday lives. As Nigeria gradually moves closer to another election cycle, public perception of the economy, security, and governance will inevitably influence political conversations.
This reality presents both a challenge and an opportunity for the opposition.

Among the leading opposition figures remains former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, a politician whose name has become deeply woven into Nigeria’s democratic journey. Over the years, Atiku has built a reputation as one of the country’s most enduring political figures, participating in some of the most consequential electoral contests in modern Nigerian history.

Yet the challenge before Atiku today is different from the challenge he faced in previous elections.

Recognition is not the issue. Nigerians know who Atiku Abubakar is. They are familiar with his political history, his public service record, and his positions on national issues. The real question is whether opposition politics can successfully connect with the frustrations, hopes, and aspirations of ordinary Nigerians in a way that feels genuine and convincing.

For many citizens, the next election may not simply be a contest between political parties or personalities. It may become a referendum on who best understands the realities confronting everyday Nigerians.
This is why politics must move beyond publicity.

In a period marked by economic pressure and public anxiety, voters are becoming increasingly resistant to carefully crafted political narratives that appear disconnected from their lived experiences. What they seek are leaders who understand their concerns and individuals capable of translating those concerns into meaningful political engagement.

For Atiku, this may require something more valuable than conventional image management.

It requires access to voices that understand the mood of the nation.

It requires people who can move comfortably between boardrooms and marketplaces, between policy discussions and community conversations, between political strategy and public sentiment.
It requires individuals who possess not only influence but perspective.

This is where Aare Dele Momodu enters the conversation.

Perhaps what makes Aare Momodu’s position unique is that politics was never originally his defining platform. Unlike many public figures who built their reputations entirely within political structures, Momodu’s journey was shaped through journalism, publishing, entrepreneurship, and public engagement.

For decades, he cultivated relationships across various sectors of society. Through his work in the media, he interacted with presidents, governors, business leaders, diplomats, entertainers, academics, professionals, and ordinary citizens. His network was built long before his deeper involvement in political affairs.

That distinction matters.

Because it means his influence extends beyond party structures and political loyalties. It is rooted in years of listening, observing, documenting, and engaging with people from different backgrounds and perspectives.

In many ways, Momodu represents an increasingly rare asset in contemporary politics: someone capable of understanding both elite conversations and grassroots realities.

Perhaps this explains why a man who was never primarily known as a politician now finds himself at the forefront of some of the country’s most important political conversations.

His relevance is not merely a product of political ambition. It is the result of decades spent building relationships, understanding public sentiment, and maintaining connections across different segments of Nigerian society.

As the political landscape begins to evolve ahead of 2027, such qualities may become increasingly important.

The next election will not be won solely through campaign slogans, social media strategies, or political advertising. It will be influenced by trust, credibility, and the ability to connect with citizens who are searching for answers in uncertain times.

For President Tinubu, the challenge is to convince Nigerians that current sacrifices will ultimately lead to meaningful progress.
For Atiku Abubakar and the opposition, the challenge is to persuade Nigerians that they offer a credible and compelling alternative.
And for those who operate around the corridors of political influence, the challenge is to ensure that leaders remain connected to the people whose lives are affected by every policy decision.

Nigeria’s future will not be determined by image management alone. It will be shaped by ideas, solutions, trust, and meaningful engagement with the concerns of ordinary citizens.

In a nation yearning for reassurance, leaders need more than advisers who can polish their public image. They need people who can help them hear the voices that matter most.

Those voices are not found in political echo chambers. They are found in the markets, the classrooms, the farms, the offices, and the communities where Nigerians continue to navigate the realities of everyday life while hoping for a better future.

Continue Reading

Trending